The European Court of Human Rights published the verdict in the case of "Antonyan v. RA". The court recorded that Armenia violated the right to a fair trial of the former judge of the Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Suren Antonyan.
It should be noted that the case of Suren Antonyan v. Armenia concerned the latter in 2023. to the dismissal of the judge by the Supreme Judicial Council in January. In 2009, he was appointed a judge of the Civil and Administrative Chamber of the Court of Cassation with a term of office until the age of 65.
The court emphasized that the SC had full authority to decide the issue of Mr. Antonyan's disciplinary responsibility, and the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law. "Decisions, which had to be reasoned, were final and binding."
"Regarding the question of whether it was an 'independent court', the Court agreed with Mr. Antonyan that giving all possible candidates the opportunity to apply for the post of a non-judicial member of the SC would facilitate and increase the transparency of the nomination process." However, the Court found that the method of appointing non-judicial members could not be considered as endangering the independence of the SC. In particular, the existing institutional and operational arrangements provided safeguards against any undue influence of the legislature, and the process was both fair and transparent. Although it would be desirable to stay away from politics for a reasonable period of time before the appointment of the SC, the fact that the non-judicial members held high-ranking positions in the executive branch immediately before the appointment was not enough to say that the independence of the SC was at risk," the ECtHR said in its decision.
Regarding Antonyan's complaint that he was deprived of the right of access to the court due to the impossibility of appeal, the Court noted that the SC acted as a "court" within the meaning of Article 6, Part 1, and its decisions in ordinary courts the lack of further review was not a problem. Therefore, there was no violation of Antonyan's rights in that regard.
"As for the lack of impartiality of the SC due to the participation of President KA, in the opinion of the Court, the close relationship between GM and KA could raise serious doubts about KA's impartiality. The court noted that K.A. did not immediately bring his company and his wife's business connections with G.M. to the attention of the Central Committee, as he should have done. Even in the absence of any direct financial connection between KA and GM, the fact that they were friends and that KA's wife and GM shared business interests, should have warned K.A. that his impartiality could be questioned. Taking into account that circumstance, the SC should have seriously considered Mr. Antonyan's motion to challenge the KA," the Court points out.
The ECtHR emphasizes that the reasoning of the Supreme Court of Justice that the lack of impartiality of only one member of the judiciary could not call into question the impartiality of the entire body was not convincing.
As stated in the decision, K.A. was the president of the Central Committee and the reporter in Antonyan's case, leading the discussions, which was an additional circumstance that was incompatible with the appearance of impartiality. It is noted that the BDC was not able to dispel Mr. Antonyan's well-founded doubts about the impartiality of its president and that he was not provided with sufficient procedural guarantees in that regard. It was not necessary for the court to decide whether, as claimed by Suren Antonyan, K.A. directed the members of the Central Committee to take a certain position in his case.
"The BRC only referred to the applicant's claim regarding the economic ties between KA and GM's wife, without giving any answer to the applicant's specific arguments about the close personal relationship between KA and GM regarding relations and their possibility to influence the decision-making of K.A. In addition, in the "Antonyan v. RA" case, K.A. was the chairman of the SC and the reporter in the case of the applicant, who led the discussions and was the main one," the ECtHR judgment states.
In relation to property damage, the ECHR found that the best compensation would be to reopen the proceedings in accordance with the requirements of Article 6, Part 1 of the Convention, if Suren Antonyan so requests.
Therefore, there was a violation of Article 6, Part 1 of the Convention.
In addition to recording the mentioned violations, the ECHR obliged RA to pay Suren Antonyan 3,600 euros for non-property damage and 1,420 euros for costs.
